Field
The embodiments generally relate to electronic communications between secure communities, and more particularly, to providing a wireless aerial mesh network among secure communities, including incident communications networks.
Background
The dynamic creation and use of secure communities that include a collection of communications resources having an administrator that maintains control over a secure community have proliferated. The dynamic creation of secure communities either in response to an incident, event, or other pre-planned situation addressed the need to facilitate communications among disparate communication devices and resources.
Specifically, a plethora of disparate communications resources exist including resources using private wireless communications (e.g., public safety and first responder communications networks), public switched network communications resources, public wireless networks, networks of video surveillance devices, private security networks, and the like. Additionally, millions of consumers and public officials are now equipped with smartphone devices that include multiple communications abilities including both voice and video communications.
Often these communications resources cannot communicate to one another. For example, private wireless communication networks, such as those used by public safety or commercial users, are typically isolated from one another and often utilize different and incompatible technologies. While interoperability products are available to interconnect such diverse systems, cooperation among the entities involved is often a barrier to full implementation. Thus, prior art first responder communication systems exist wherein control of the resources of each organization coupled to the system is controlled by a central commander or controller. Each organization providing resources to the system must relinquish control of its resources to the central commander. The organization responsible for the operation of its radio system(s) may be unable or unwilling to grant control of its resources either to peer organizations or to a higher-level organization.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,643,445, entitled Interoperable Communications System and Method of Use, issued on Jan. 5, 2010, and U.S. Pat. No. 8,320,874, entitled System and Method for Establishing an Incident Communications Network, issued on Nov. 27, 2012, both of which are incorporated by reference in their entirety, describe systems and methods for providing an interoperable communications system (“interop system,” also referred to as an Incident Communications Network) including a plurality of otherwise disjunct communications systems that addressed the deficiencies of prior art systems. The '445 and '874 patents specifically describe methods for establishing an incident communications network that enables interoperable communications among communications resources controlled by multiple organizations during an incident involving emergency or pre-planned multi-organization communications wherein a communications resource is controlled by an administrator within an organization.
Additionally, U.S. Pat. No. 8,811,940, entitled Dynamic Asset Marshalling Within an Incident Communications Network, issued on Aug. 19, 2014, (“'940 patent”) which is also incorporated herein by reference, extends the concepts of the '445 and '874 patents. Namely, the '940 patent provides systems and methods that marshal resources into an incident communications network based on a variety of factors, such as the type of incident and the type of resource being marshaled.
U. S. Patent Publication 2013/0198517, entitled Enabling Ad Hoc Trusted Connections Among Enclaved Communication Communities, filed on Mar. 13, 2013, (“Enclaved Application”) which is also incorporated herein by reference, also extends the concepts of the '445 and '874 patents. Namely, the Enclaved Application provides systems and methods for dynamic access among secure communities, such as incident communications networks, that enables communication resources of a first secure community to securely access and/or utilize communication resources within other secure communities.
Wireless Services when Site is Physically Inaccessible
In times of emergency, including both natural disasters and man-made scenarios, existing communication networks can be overwhelmed, congested and disrupted, making it impossible for first responders and emergency personnel to communicate within and beyond the impacted areas. To re-establish communications, it is common for carriers and government agencies to deploy portable wireless communications systems to the area. These portable systems, sometimes known as cellular on wheels (COWs) and system on wheels (SOWs), typically consist of a deployable mast with an antenna, a base station, a repeater and other associated switching and routing equipment that enables communication between two or more telephone end points within the affected area. Often these systems are built using an automotive vehicle that can drive to a location, unfurl the antenna mast, and sustain operations using an on-board power generator.
The general problems with COWs and SOWs are coverage and bandwidth limitations, and physical site accessibility problems. For example, in an earthquake, hurricane or flood related-emergency, the area might be physically inaccessible—driving the vehicle to the scene can be impractical or impossible. In military scenarios, the vehicle may not be able to drive to the scene in a reasonable time for operations to commence. The utility of these systems on wheels is also limited by numerous other factors, including effective RF/radio coverage area and line-of-sight. Radio coverage area is a function of many factors, including signal power, radio wave length, antenna height, ground terrain and atmospheric conditions, and often the optimal transmission and communications coverage within an impacted area cannot be attained.
To overcome such typical in-field limitations, sometimes the SOW and COW communication nodes can be supplemented with additional bubbles of coverage through the deployment of portable wireless network nodes, such mobile ad hoc network (MANET) systems and WiFi network access point deployments. MANET and other mobile ad hock portable or highly mobile wireless networks suffer from similar physical deployment/access limitations as do the COWs and SOWs, but suffer even greater RF/radio limitations due to their lower power, limited antenna heights, smaller node capacity, and other factors. In addition, these extended bubbles are often highly limited in their communication range, and typically do not reach back to the larger remote network, which is often needed to communicate between the affected site and remote facilities.